Five Reasons I Reject the Doctrine of Transubstantiation

Reclaiming the Mind Credo House ^ | March 8, 2013 | C Michael Patton

[RnMomof7]

The doctrine of Transubstantiation is the belief that the elements of the Lord’s table (bread and wine) supernaturally transform into the body and blood of Christ during the Mass. This is uniquely held by Roman Catholics but some form of a “Real Presence” view is held by Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, and some Anglicans. The Calvinist/Reformed tradition believes in a real spiritual presence but not one of substance. Most of the remaining Protestant traditions (myself included) don’t believe in any real presence, either spiritual or physical, but believe that the Eucharist is a memorial and a proclamation of Christ’s work on the cross (this is often called Zwinglianism). The Roman Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563) defined Transubstantiation this way:

By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Session XIII, chapter IV)

As well, there is an abiding curse (anathema) placed on all Christians who deny this doctrine:

If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ,[42] but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema. (Session XII, Canon I)

It is very important to note that Roman Catholics not only believe that taking the Eucharist in the right manner is essential for salvation, but that belief in the doctrine is just as essential.

Here are the five primary reasons why I reject the doctrine of Transubstantiation:

1. It takes Christ too literally

There does not seem to be any reason to take Christ literally when he institutes the Eucharist with the words, “This is my body” and “This is my blood” (Matt. 26:26-28, et al). Christ often used metaphor in order to communicate a point. For example, he says “I am the door,” “I am the vine,” “You are the salt of the earth,” and “You are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:13-14) but people know that we don’t take such statement literally. After all, who believes that Christ is literally a door swinging on a hinge?

2. It does not take Christ literally enough

Let’s say for the sake of the argument that in this instance Christ did mean to be taken literally. What would this mean? Well, it seems hard to escape the conclusion that the night before Christ died on the cross, when he said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood,” that it actually was his body and blood that night before he died. If this were the case, and Christ really meant to be taken literally, we have Christ, before the atonement was actually made, offering the atonement to his disciples. I think this alone gives strong support to a denial of any substantial real presence.

3. It does not take Christ literally enough (2)

In each of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) we have the institution of the Eucharist. When the wine is presented, Christ’s wording is a bit different. Here is how it goes in Luke’s Gospel: “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” (Luk 22:20). Here, if we were really to take Christ literally, the “cup” is the new covenant. It is not the wine, it is the cup that is holy. However, of course, even Roman Catholics would agree that the cup is symbolic of the wine. But why one and not the other? Why can’t the wine be symbolic of his death if the cup can be symbolic of the wine? As well, is the cup actually the “new covenant”? That is what he says. “This cup . . . is the new covenant.” Is the cup the actual new covenant, or only symbolic of it? See the issues?

4. The Gospel of John fails to mention the Eucharist

Another significant problem I have with the Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist and its abiding anathemas is that the one Gospel which claims to be written so that people may have eternal life, John (John 20:31), does not even include the institution of the Eucharist. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all tell the story of Christ giving the first Lord’s table, but John decides to leave it out. Why? This issue is made more significant in that John includes more of the “Upper Room” narrative than any of the other Gospels. Nearly one-third of the entire book of John walks us through what Christ did and said that night with his disciples. Yet no breaking of the bread or giving of the wine is included. This is a pretty significant oversight if John meant to give people the message that would lead to eternal life  (John 20:31). From the Roman Catholic perspective, his message must be seen as insufficient to lead to eternal life since practice and belief in the Mass are essential for eternal life and he leaves these completely out of the Upper Room narrative.

(Some believe that John does mention the importance of belief in Transubstantiation in John 6. The whole, “Why did he let them walk away?” argument. But I think this argument is weak. I talk about that here. Nevertheless, it still does not answer why John left out the institution of the Lord’s Supper. It could be that by A.D. 90, John saw an abuse of the Lord’s table already rising. He may have sought to curb this abuse by leaving the Eucharist completely out of his Gospel. But this, I readily admit, is speculative.)

5. Problems with the Hypostatic Union and the Council of Chalcedon

This one is going to be a bit difficult to explain, but let me give it a shot. Orthodox Christianity (not Eastern Orthodox) holds to the “Hypostatic Union” of Christ. This means that we believe that Christ is fully God and fully man. This was most acutely defined at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Important for our conversation is that Christ had to be fully man to fully redeem us. Christ could not be a mixture of God and man, or he could only represent other mixtures of God and man. He is/was one person with two complete natures. These nature do not intermingle (they are “without confusion”). In other words, his human nature does not infect or corrupt his divine nature. And his divine nature does not infect or corrupt his human nature. This is called the communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties or attributes). The attributes of one nature cannot communicate (transfer/share) with another nature. Christ’s humanity did not become divinitized. It remained complete and perfect humanity (with all its limitations). The natures can communicate with the Person, but not with each other. Therefore, the attribute of omnipresence (present everywhere) cannot communicate to his humanity to make his humanity omnipresent. If it did, we lose our representative High Priest, since we don’t have this attribute communicated to our nature. Christ must always remain as we are in order to be the Priest and Pioneer of our faith. What does all of this mean? Christ’s body cannot be at more than one place at a time, much less at millions of places across the world every Sunday during Mass. In this sense, I believe that any real physical presence view denies the definition of Chalcedon and the principles therein.

There are many more objections that I could bring including Paul’s lack of mentioning it to the Romans (the most comprehensive presentation of the Gospel in the Bible), some issues of anatomy, issues of idolatry, and just some very practical things concerning Holy Orders, church history, and . . . ahem . . . excrement. But I think these five are significant enough to justify a denial of Transubstantiation. While I respect Roman Catholicism a great deal, I must admit how hard it is for me to believe that a doctrine that is so difficult to defend biblically is held to such a degree that abiding anathemas are pronounced on those who disagree.

 

[rwa265]

Manna has nothing to do with this, but was food supplied by God from Heaven, and I don’t know why one would even want to try to duplicate or revive something that would turn to wormy garbage if it was kept overnight, and I don’t know what the purpose would be. I wouldn’t waste time on that, nor of inventing shoes and shirts that wouldn’t wear out in forty years. I’d get kind of tired of all this, and want some new clothes, and onions, and garlic as well. Apparently manna was pretty bland and without much texture.

---

I agree, who would want to try to duplicate this food supplied by God from Heaven.

My question is somewhat of a sidebar.

If there is a desire to represent manna, such as in a play depicting the Israelites gathering and eating manna, is there a better earthly substance to use than matzos?

[rwa265]

Rome says that only IT has the ‘authority’ to ‘interpret’.

---

Bull malarkey. Charismatics are such a step child in the Church that our leaders barely recognize speaking in tongues, much less interpreting tongues.

[imardmd1]

Jello.

[imardmd1]

Actually, I make Jello with half the water, pour it hot in a foam plastic tray saved from Saran-wrapped produce, and just let it cool and harden. Refrigerating hurries it up. Then you can cut it up into cubes and eat it with your fingers.

Gummy bears are the same thing only less water. Gelatin, sugar, flavoring, and water. Gerlatin could be like manna, in a pinch.

More simple is just to get a package of unflavored, uncolored gelatin, dissolve it in hot water, pour it out into a coolie sheet to be thin, let it harden, and strip it off the cookie sheet, then cut it up into flakes with scissors.

Voila! Pseudo-manna!

Maybe manna was just bug-eggs dissolved in rain and hardened. Figure that out --

[rwa265]

As Sam McCloud would say, there you go.

[ex-snook]

"60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?" 61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble?…"

Come home.

[rwa265]

Maybe manna was just bug-eggs dissolved in rain and hardened. Figure that out —

---

You may have something, there. One day when I was playing volleyball, one of the women in the game accidentally swallowed a bug. Her reaction was, oh good, protein.

[Mad Dawg]

Spanakopita is why Greeks (pronounced “gdiks”) are as strong as Popeye.

From the beginning of Romans and since my earliest days of pondering this stuff, I have always tended more to Justin Martyr's view than to Tertullian’s. It was he who famously demanded, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?”

For: What OTHER than Logos shall we use to discuss the question of the place of Logos in the Christian proclamation?

And I think it no accident that Tertullian ended up a Montanist. If reason is discarded, what is left but ecstasy (bogus or not) and passion? We may disagree about reinen Vernunft (pure reason), but we will carry out that disagreement either with reason or with insults and stones.

There is a KIND of QUASI-dualism in monotheism, but if we are going to claim ONE God and then claim the Son is rightly called Word and Truth, then to study Logos itself is to come at least as close as the woman who touched the fringe of our Lord's garment.

And when she did so, He asked, “Who touched ME?” not, “Who touched my clothes?” I think, always assuming grace and election, that the sincere and humble quest into Logos can bring one within healing distance of Jesus.

Now, it seems clear to me that one can make an idol of Reason as easily as one can of a certain collection of feelings. And just as our feelings are disordered -- so that some feel guilty when they aren't or don't feel guilty when they are, so reason is weak in many ways. It is too subject to passion, so that judiciousness is a virtue, a habit of excellence, helped or not by disposition. And even judicious people err. (Not ME, of course, but I have seen others err.)

But it is humans IHS came to save. He came to perfect, not obliterate, their nature, even if the perfection comes through death. So I cannot see the total rejection of the Greeks or even some of the more recent thinkers, including the scoundrel Heidegger, as implied in accepting and receiving IHS as God's perfect self-disclosure.

P.S. It might be helpful for me to add that I think poetry is the highest form of human discourse.

[MHGinTN]

From Michael Norten's Unlocking The Secrets Of The Feasts, conclucion excerpt:

As for the spring feasts, Jesus fulfilled each one on the very day of the feasts, as (I) previously noted. Christ honored and fulfilled the Passover by His death. He honored and fulfilled the Feast of Unleavened Bread by His burial. Christ honored and fulfilled the Feast of First Fruits by His resurrection from the grave. Christ honored and fulfilled the Feast of Pentecost by sending the Holy Spirit fifty days after His resurrection.

[Mad Dawg]

I’ll be interested to know your response to my saying that that is a VERY Catholic thing to say! Stunning typology!

[MHGinTN]

No, the catholic typology has the catholic eating not just the flesh of the Passover Lamb slain from the Foundations of the World but His blood, soul and DIVINITY. If you understood the PAssover lamb you would know it was to have its blood shed, poured out not drunk. A small portion was to be spread upon the doorposts and lintel. The flesh of the lamb was to roasted and all of it eaten that night before departure. If anything was left it was to be burned up with fire so only the ash remained. Only by magic thinking is the actual Passover a typology to the catholic pagan Mass.

And while you seem to be in a mood to answer questions, if you eat the divinity of Jesus and get Him into you, why do you not have eternal life in the now as you walk away from the altar of the Catholic Mass?

[don-o]

Wow! Long read, but so much worth it. Marvelous explanations in that presentation. Thanks for posting it here.

Better watch out. Them Orthodox have Holy Mysteries, Holy Tradition and the Holy Theotokos.

[Mad Dawg]

Thus what I wrote about Logos is, if not confirmed, certainly exampled.

[MHGinTN]

Here's a 'holy mystery for ya:

1 Cor 15:51 -53 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.…
1Thess4:13-17 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Revelation 4:1 After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things."

[Mad Dawg]

And it just gets more and more interesting.

Calvin's actual teachings and acts lead a Protestant history scholar to become a Catholic.

I was especially interested to read his claim that Calvin repudiated a "Spiritual" sense of the Eucharistic presence.

[RedHeeler]

Ever been there?

[RedHeeler]

Huh?

[RedHeeler]

I can agree or deny.